4 Foreign Influences on Old English - UMass Amherst

S ix days after the Supreme Court lifted restrictions on corporate money in U.S. elections with its January 21, 2010, ruling in Citizens United , President Obama warned in his State of the Union address that it would “open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections.”

But as unlimited contributions have coursed through the election system, no one has been able to point to a specific example of foreign money flowing into U.S. presidential politics as a result of the Supreme Court’s decision.

The Intercept has determined that a corporation owned by a Chinese couple made a major donation to Jeb Bush’s Super PAC Right to Rise USA — and it did so after receiving detailed advice from Charlie Spies, arguably the most important Republican campaign finance lawyer in American politics.

We’ve been hearing a lot about Russian hacking of Democratic (and perhaps Republican) email — with the apparent intent to influence the US election.  Recently, US intelligence services were reported to have presented evidence of this.  In response, some are proposing this information be provided to members of the Electoral College before they cast their votes.  Others have suggested postponing the Electoral College vote until a Congressional investigation takes place.

These kinds of proposals beg the question whether the Russian hacking and/or intent to influence the US election are illegal under existing law.

(This may be a tricky question as other countries may object to a US law against foreign influence in US elections — unless the US definitively ends US efforts to influence other nations.)

The government has announced details of its long-foreshadowed crackdown on foreign political donations, along with plans to update Australia’s criminal code to counter foreign espionage and covert interference.

The attorney general, George Brandis , said the government wanted to introduce a “foreign influence transparency scheme” to force individuals and organisations to declare if they are acting on behalf of a foreign power to influence Australia’s politics.

“The threat of covert foreign interference is a problem of the highest order and it is getting worse,” Brandis said on Tuesday. “The director general of Asio, the agency primarily responsible for investigating espionage and foreign interference, has advised that foreign intelligence activity against Australia continues to occur on an unprecedented scale.”

Foreign influence in American elections and political struggles is nothing new, and the effort of the Democratic Party, helped by their allies in the mainstream media, to promote the narrative that Russia influenced the victory of Republican Donald Trump over Democrat Hillary Clinton, certainly would fit well into our nation’s history. If it were true.

Specifically, the charge is that Russia was somehow behind the leak of DNC e-mails to WikiLeaks. In fact, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has even produced an “assessment” that the Russians were disruptive, leaking damaging information about Clinton, in order to promote the candidacy of Trump. But considering that National Intelligence Director James Clapper is conducting the investigation into the alleged Russian “hack,” it will be difficult to trust any statement he makes on the subject.

It was Clapper who told a congressional hearing in 2013 that the National Security Agency (NSA) did not collect data on millions of Americans. Soon after that sworn statement, whistleblower Edward Snowden demonstrated that there was, in fact, massive data collection by the NSA. And now are we supposed to have confidence that Clapper will tell us the truth on whether the Russians were the culprits in leaking to WikiLeaks information damaging to Clinton and the Democrats.

S ix days after the Supreme Court lifted restrictions on corporate money in U.S. elections with its January 21, 2010, ruling in Citizens United , President Obama warned in his State of the Union address that it would “open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections.”

But as unlimited contributions have coursed through the election system, no one has been able to point to a specific example of foreign money flowing into U.S. presidential politics as a result of the Supreme Court’s decision.

The Intercept has determined that a corporation owned by a Chinese couple made a major donation to Jeb Bush’s Super PAC Right to Rise USA — and it did so after receiving detailed advice from Charlie Spies, arguably the most important Republican campaign finance lawyer in American politics.

We’ve been hearing a lot about Russian hacking of Democratic (and perhaps Republican) email — with the apparent intent to influence the US election.  Recently, US intelligence services were reported to have presented evidence of this.  In response, some are proposing this information be provided to members of the Electoral College before they cast their votes.  Others have suggested postponing the Electoral College vote until a Congressional investigation takes place.

These kinds of proposals beg the question whether the Russian hacking and/or intent to influence the US election are illegal under existing law.

(This may be a tricky question as other countries may object to a US law against foreign influence in US elections — unless the US definitively ends US efforts to influence other nations.)

The government has announced details of its long-foreshadowed crackdown on foreign political donations, along with plans to update Australia’s criminal code to counter foreign espionage and covert interference.

The attorney general, George Brandis , said the government wanted to introduce a “foreign influence transparency scheme” to force individuals and organisations to declare if they are acting on behalf of a foreign power to influence Australia’s politics.

“The threat of covert foreign interference is a problem of the highest order and it is getting worse,” Brandis said on Tuesday. “The director general of Asio, the agency primarily responsible for investigating espionage and foreign interference, has advised that foreign intelligence activity against Australia continues to occur on an unprecedented scale.”

S ix days after the Supreme Court lifted restrictions on corporate money in U.S. elections with its January 21, 2010, ruling in Citizens United , President Obama warned in his State of the Union address that it would “open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections.”

But as unlimited contributions have coursed through the election system, no one has been able to point to a specific example of foreign money flowing into U.S. presidential politics as a result of the Supreme Court’s decision.

The Intercept has determined that a corporation owned by a Chinese couple made a major donation to Jeb Bush’s Super PAC Right to Rise USA — and it did so after receiving detailed advice from Charlie Spies, arguably the most important Republican campaign finance lawyer in American politics.

We’ve been hearing a lot about Russian hacking of Democratic (and perhaps Republican) email — with the apparent intent to influence the US election.  Recently, US intelligence services were reported to have presented evidence of this.  In response, some are proposing this information be provided to members of the Electoral College before they cast their votes.  Others have suggested postponing the Electoral College vote until a Congressional investigation takes place.

These kinds of proposals beg the question whether the Russian hacking and/or intent to influence the US election are illegal under existing law.

(This may be a tricky question as other countries may object to a US law against foreign influence in US elections — unless the US definitively ends US efforts to influence other nations.)

S ix days after the Supreme Court lifted restrictions on corporate money in U.S. elections with its January 21, 2010, ruling in Citizens United , President Obama warned in his State of the Union address that it would “open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections.”

But as unlimited contributions have coursed through the election system, no one has been able to point to a specific example of foreign money flowing into U.S. presidential politics as a result of the Supreme Court’s decision.

The Intercept has determined that a corporation owned by a Chinese couple made a major donation to Jeb Bush’s Super PAC Right to Rise USA — and it did so after receiving detailed advice from Charlie Spies, arguably the most important Republican campaign finance lawyer in American politics.

 
 
 
51YD+Z21KJL